Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:48:26AM +0200, Frank K�ster wrote: >> There is at least one more, and it seems to me this is what many people >> have expressed: >> >> * All data (everything) in main should be DFSG-free, and must be >> post-sarge. But we want an exception for sarge. >> >> The exception should be that stuff that can be distributed, >> but is non-free, and has been in sarge before the SC change, >> and would have been allowed to stay according to the old >> release policy, can stay in for sarge and point releases. > ... >> The question is not only how long you estimate that the changes that >> still need to be made will take (e.g. for non-distributable things). The >> main question, for me, is whether any of the so-far proposed resolutions[1] >> achieves the goal of establishing an exception for sarge. > > Have you read http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004?
Yes, why do you ask? > If it's too much to absorb all at once, as a first step you might want to > go through it and read the paragraphs (and associated labels) that contain > the word "Sarge". [Then go back and read the rest with that mind.] What do you want to say with that? I think that Proposal B, C and E want to establish an exception as I wrote above. The point is that I feel that Anthony does not read the same from those paragraphs. I wonder why. But it seems it is no longer important, since he has (somehow) answered the question. >> It also tells me that I should keep on with my doubts whether the >> desired effect, an exception for sarge, can be achieved with one of the >> current proposals. Maybe Raul's can do that better. > > I've decided I do not need to make a proposal. There is already a > proposal which specifically talks about an exemption for Sarge. My sentence was rather a suggestive question to Anthony, or the like. Personally, I have the opinion that the proposals are well formulated to achieve what (I believe) they want. > I had forgotten about the part of the proposal which specifically provides > for Sarge's release when I suggested that language. You mean E. Proposal C also mentiones sarge, and I don't see how this would not also establish such an exception. Regards, Frank -- Frank K�ster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
